818 S.W .2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1687 - 07

D A N I EL R EY , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S EVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA LE CO UNTY K ELL ER , P. J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on. The c ourt uses languag e found in the injury -to-a- child statute t o d ef i n e t erms found in the

c hil d- a ba nd on me nt s ta tut e . T he pr ob le m w iththis app ro a c h is that, g ive n th a t th e langua g e in question is in the wrong statute, the Court’s ana ly sis does not comport with the require ments of Bo y k in v . S tat e . 1 Appellant wa s char g ed with child aba ndonment under Texas Pena l Code §22.041, providing in releva nt part: “A pe rson commi ts an off ense if, ha ving c ustody , car e, or c ontrol of a c hild y oung er than 15 y ear s, he int entionally abandons the child in any place under circumstanc es t hat ex pose theREY CONCURRENCE – 2

T EX . P EN A L C ODE §22.041(b). 2 See Id. , §22.04(d) a

nd §22.04, pa ssi m . 3 Id. , §22.04(d)( emphasis adde d). 4 See id. , §22.04, pa ssi m . 5 See id. , §22.041, pa ssi m . 6 818 S.W .2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 7 child to an unreasonable risk of harm.” To define “custody , car e, or control,” the Court relies upon 2 langua g e fo un d in

a dif fe re nt s e c tio n, §2 2. 04 , th a t c od if ie s a dif fe re nt o ff e ns e , in jur y to a c hil d. Th is

3 lang uag e, found in §22.04(d) , ref ers only to other par

ts of §22.04: F o r p u r p o s es o f a n o mi s s i o n th a t

ca u s es a co n di t i o n d

es cr i b ed b y S u b s ec t i o n (a)(1

), ( 2) , or ( 3) , the actor has assumed car e, custody , or control if he has by act, wor ds, or course of conduc t acted so a s to cause a rea sonable p erson to conclude that he ha s acc epted r esponsibi l i ty

for pr otection, food, shelter , and medica l car e for a child, e lde rl y ind ivi du a l, o r d isa

ble d in div idu a l. 4 No lang uag e in §22.04 provides f or the ope ratio n of §22.04(d) outside of §22.04. The c hild- 5 abando n me n t s tatute , § 2 2

. 0 4 1 , ma k e s n o r e f e r e n c e to § 2 2

. 0 4 ( d )

. N o r , a s f ar a s Ia m a w ar e , does 6 any other statute indicate that §22.04(d) a pplies in p ro s ec u t ions for child aba ndonment under §22.041. With o ut s o me e xp r e s s la

n g u a g e r e la ting §22.04( d) to prosec utions under §22.041, one c annot

rea sonably say , under Bo

y k in v. Sta te , that §22.04(d) un am biguo us ly applies to prosec utions under 7 §2 2. 04 1. I t is no t e no ug h to say that §2 2. 04 and §2 2. 04 1 are imm e diate ly a dja c e nt t o e a c h o the r i n the Penal Code and that the numbe ring of the sec tions is onl y one dig it off. The same could be sa id, for e x ample, of the offe nses of ag g ravated assault and ag g ravated sexual assault, found in §22.02 and §22.021 respe ctively

.REY CONCURRENCE – 3

See Ac ts 1 98 5, 69 L e g ., c h. 79 1, §1 ; T EX . P EN A L C ODE §22.041(b)( West 1985). 8 t h See T EX . P EN A L C ODE §22.04 (Ve rnon’s 1974). 9 See Ac ts 1 98 9, 71 L e g ., c h 3 57 , § 1; T EX . P EN A L C ODE §22.04(d)( West 1990). 10 st To muddle matters fu rt h er, although §22.04 a nd §22.041 use the same words, they are prese nted in a diffe rent orde r: §22.04(d) r efe rs to “ca re, c ustody , or control” while §22.041(b) r efe rs to “ c u s to dy , c ar e , o r c o n tr o l. ” I f th e L e g is latu r e in te n d e d th e d e f

in it io n o f a p h r ase f

ound in one statute to apply

in a di ffe rent statute, one would expect the appe ara nce of the phra se in both statutes to b e ide nti c a l. I t should also be observe d that §22.0 4 1(b), the c hild-abandonme nt statute, predates §22.04(d). The child-aba

ndonment statute was enac ted in 1985, and the languag e of subse ction (b) has remained unchang ed si nce then. Although the injury -to-a- child statute was or igina lly enac ted 8 wi t h t h e P en al C o d e i n1 9 7 4 , i twa s n o tu n t i l 1 9 8 9 t h at a v er s i o no f t h e s u b s ec t i o n(d ) l an gu age 9

re la tin g to t

he me anin g of “ c are , cu sto dy , o r c on tr ol” wa s f ir st a dd e d. B e c a

us e the inj ur

y -t o- a -c hil d 10 pr ov isi on is the ne we r p ro vis ion , on e canno t c on te nd tha t th e L e g isl a tur e ha d it

in m ind wh e n it

enac ted the old er , ch i ld-aba ndonment provision. And had the L eg islature intended the newe r provision to apply

to the older provision, it could have easily said so. Iconcur in the Court’s decision to reve rse the judg ment of the c ourt of appe als and re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s, bu t I

dis a g re e wi th t

he Court ’s de c isi on

to r e qu ir e the c ourt

of a ppeal s to
c on sid e r t he c a se un de r t

he pa rt ic ula r s tand ard art ic ulate d b y

the Court
. Filed: Apr il 1, 2009 Publis h